There are many ways to view the Hillary vs. Obama debate as a perspective voter or supporter.

If you're an all-or-nothing, conservative, partisan Republican, with eyes on the White House for your party, I suppose Hillary is the better bet. She may come across as a little less liberal than Obama but she seems to be a better match vs. McCain electorally speaking from partisan POV. Conservatives simply think the divisive nature of Hillary Clinton will bode better in a general election vs. the "more maverick" McCain. In short, it's a political calculation. You want your team to play the team you think they match up better against.

If you're a less partisan Republican but still a hawk who wants the lesser of two evils on Foreign Policy, Hillary is also the better bet. She may not be as hawkish as McCain but she's more hawkish than Obama. The last thing you want is a President with zero support for the war effort or a drastically different view on what it takes to the GWOT.

On a Democratic side, there are basically two groups and they sway on the intangibles and self-identification criteria with the party factions:

The generally more Middle America, more white, less educated, lower income, blue collar populist, union types are for Hillary. They want someone who knows how to "git'er done" in DC, fight the bad guys and deliver the goods with nice sounding reforms. They want a "strong leader who controls things in their favor". Their views on foreign and social policy are also more moderate so that bodes well for Hillary in terms of perception. And yes, these people can also be a little more racist in a passive sort of way. I personally know several. Sorry if that offends anyone but it's true.

The more liberal, college educated and idealist wing supports Obama. The "priority-one" anti-war crowd is also more in his corner. I think that speaks for itself. So do the blacks because...well...Obama is black. I think that speaks for itself too.

Independents and centrists who generally dislike "DC politicking" and the status quo are probably more for Obama as well. Obama "sounds different", says the "right things", is a "breath of fresh air against politics-as-usual" and comes across as the true outsider.

Also, as a subset of the independent group, more in my neck of the woods, is the more deliberative and strategic nonpartisan libertarian group which is also a subset of the general libertarian swing vote....a group that votes almost 50/50 between the parties these days...if they don't vote 3rd party. It would also seem that this group is heavily leaning Democratic in this election. Reading into this small group of thinkers in pretty interesting...at least for people like me anyway. :)- It's not really interesting in terms of who'll they vote for but rather to get a feel for the possible realities, rhetoric and promises aside, of having either Obama or Hillary as president.

These people's agendas generally transcend and/or strattle partisan agendas and they seem to go to great pains to find a justification for either and the justifications are generally an indicator of what kind of reality we should expect from President Hillary or President Obama.

Megan McArdle of the Atlantic Monthly leans Obama as do most others, in my experience. Why? Well, besides the 800lb Gorilla of Foreign Policy, and without digging up links, she senses a better understanding, in Obama, of first principles (and second!) and political economy and the ramifications of policy beyond intent. Basically, she sees more respect for fundamentals and methodology of "massaging or coaxing incentives in a behavorial context. This contrasts with the more "kitchen table" appeal of Hillary's approach.

Basically,

Hillary approach is: If you want a result, you say you're going to do it and then do something that seems to directly attempt to do it. Politically, it's more digestible and easy to conceptualize. It's as subtle as a bull running through a room of china.

Obama's is more: If you want something, you need to find out why you're not getting it and look for the less intrusive of helping or coaxing people to do what you think they should do or would do if it were easier or more institutionally predictable for them to do it. AKA, soft paternalism. Much more subtle....more like a whisper, a nudge or gentle push in desired direction....for the most part. It's also a little less palatable for the straight-talking, show-me-the-money, make-it-all-better crowd.

Bryan Caplan, ever the "think-outside-the-box" contrarian that he is, takes a different approach in lightt of all the waves in the opposite direction and it's more in line with the "divided government works best argument:

In terms of policy, Hillary and Obama look extremely similar to me; I prefer either to McCain because I think they're more likely to get the U.S. out of Iraq. But Hillary worries me a lot less than Obama because leaving Iraq is likely to be her only major political success. Hillary has a built-in army of enemies, and she's making more enemies every day. (I've talked to Obama supporters who hate her more than Rush Limbaugh does!) Obama, in contrast, is genuinely likeable. At least during his honeymoon period, he might be able to unite the country behind a long list of "progressive" reforms. And that's what makes him dangerous to liberty.

In short, people who hate Hillary's (domestic) policies should hope that Hillary beats Obama, because he's a lot more likely to deliver on her promises than she is.

Hmmm. I've heard this pro-Hillary argument before from fellow-traveler Will Wilkinson of Cato and Fly Bottle. The argument basically is a little more thorough in that it doesn't take the candidate's views and promises at face value but rather it looks at the person within the realties of the context via which they will be trying to deliver those on the promises. I think it's a compelling case if that is your agenda.

Personally, for me...as insightful and thorough as Bryan's analysis is, it's not enough for me. Perhaps it's just a hunch but I feel Obama will do much better for my own views on Foreign Policy than Hillary will....regardless of what they say and considering the political context within they would working.

And while I share Caplan's trepidations on domestic policy, Foreign Policy is still and will always be the sphere of political power where the President makes the most direct and unfettered impact.